Moderator: Community Team
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.





















thegreekdog wrote:Unfortunately, to answer any of those questions we have to pretend that this thread isn't 100% intellectually dishonest.
thegreekdog wrote:Seriously, you want a debate about a subject, make some valid arguments. Then people will respond in kind.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.

















PLAYER57832 wrote:If your questionaire proves anything, its that you have to understand a subject a bit to even ask intelligent questions ... and you don't.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.

Dancing Mustard wrote:1. Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?
a. A Caribbean sunset
b. The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
c. The first time your perfect new baby smiles at you
d. The speed of the Ebola virus converting an African child's organs into liquid
Dancing Mustard wrote:they're not actually based on false premises and assumptions
Dancing Mustard wrote:You assume that I (1) desire such a debate
Dancing Mustard wrote:2) believe that there is a valid debate to be had about organised religion.




















thegreekdog wrote:Dancing Mustard wrote:1. Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?
a. A Caribbean sunset
b. The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
c. The first time your perfect new baby smiles at you
d. The speed of the Ebola virus converting an African child's organs into liquid
This is a direct question regarding a theological work? What theological work provides evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer? Further, assuming a theological work provides evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer, which of these four options is included in such theological work?
If you do not desire such a debate, then why did you begin this thread? If you don't want an actual debate, isn't this actually 100% intellectually dishonest?





Dancing Mustard wrote:Ahhh, the 'indignant anger' response... that's always a fun one.




















thegreekdog wrote:This is a direct question regarding a theological work? What theological work provides evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer? Further, assuming a theological work provides evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer, which of these four options is included in such theological work?
1. Yes.
2. The Bible and many supplementary texts supporting its claims.
3. One and Three are frequently explicitly cited by 'creation scientists' in their treatises, options two and four are obliquely cited in those same texts.
Come on, don't play dumb on me again.thegreekdog wrote:if you are an atheist, they are all based on false premises and assumptions.
Cheap sophist tactics.
All questions in the questionnaire are based on premises which are advanced as being true by several groups of advocates who claim that they can evidence that truth, therefore it's not intellectually dishonest to seek to test them with honest questions and analogies.
I'm afraid that language-twisting and epistemological game-playing isn't going to be quite a big enough speed-bump for you on this one.thegreekdog wrote:If you do not desire such a debate, then why did you begin this thread? If you don't want an actual debate, isn't this actually 100% intellectually dishonest?
1. Because I desire an exchange of a different nature. Which you're delivering to me on a plate.
2. No. Because I never claimed to be after a debate.
I have to say, for a man who claims to have passed the bar your imagination and reading-comprehension skills appear to be letting you down rather severely on this one.thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure what any of these questions have to do with organized religion. They seem to be based more on the belief in a deity, whether such diety's disciples have an organized religion or not.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.

thegreekdog wrote:How is that different than bedub's thread again?
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.

Dancing Mustard wrote:I mean, I admire your commitment to hardcore sophistry and faux ignorance. But I'm pretty sure that you're not that incapable of reading between the, incredibly well spaced and obvious, lines here. In other words, pull the other on, it's got bells on it.




















thegreekdog wrote:I am confused as to why some find pleasure in winning debates against persons who are either of below-average intelligence, children, or who have faith in some sort of divine being.
thegreekdog wrote:I find that it takes little effort on my part to win such a debate, which is why I question what you, Dancing Mustard, would get out of this.
thegreekdog wrote:I find little difference between your attempt to make yourself feel better via this particular thread and the bully who picks on the small kid at school because daddy beats him every night.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.

Dancing Mustard wrote:I find it offensive that you've chosen to lump those three categories together... what on earth are you implying?
I mean, anybody would think that you're implying that theists are all idiots who blindly continue to cling to primitive stone-age delusions that are devoid of both truth or merit. Surely that can't be what you're saying... is it?
Dancing Mustard wrote:What I get out of these exchanges is a sense of satisfaction from knowing that I've delivered a short sharp shock to a deluded individual (in the hope that if enough of these are delivered, logic and reality might begin to shine through the fog of religious brainwashing and cure the afflicted of their delusions) and left a small internet monument that will hopefully deliver similar short sharp shocks to similar others.
Dancing Mustard wrote:Wheeee!!!
And there's the big leap of faith and the complete departure from logic and sense.
Get a grip mate, this is nothing like the situation you describe. There's a difference in motive, a complete difference in the act (non-consensual violence / consensual argument), and a difference in end product derived from said exchange.




















natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"








thegreekdog wrote: I mean, really, most people "believe" because they "faith," not because they have proof. That's why it's easy to "beat" then in an argument. For example, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. I won't engage in an argument about the existence of God, simply because I will always lose the argument. My belief is not based on fact, it's based on faith.





thegreekdog wrote:If you do not desire such a debate, then why did you begin this thread? If you don't want an actual debate, isn't this actually 100% intellectually dishonest?


























Dancing Mustard wrote:So, I've been chatting with my buddy JJM










Snorri1234 wrote:Noone wants to answer it?





thegreekdog wrote:
Do you really think these people haven't heard all this before? Further, do you think it will really affect them in any way? Do you think someone will say, "You know what, DM is right, there is no proof that there's a God... therefore, I'm going to go atheist"? If so, you're a little more gullible than a religious.



















jonesthecurl wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
Do you really think these people haven't heard all this before? Further, do you think it will really affect them in any way? Do you think someone will say, "You know what, DM is right, there is no proof that there's a God... therefore, I'm going to go atheist"? If so, you're a little more gullible than a religious.
Well, people DO change their mind.
Some people convert from one branch of christainity to another.
Some suddenly take their religion seriously and are "born again".
Some even convert from one religion to another.
Or a devout person will come to the conclusion taht it's all nonsense and become an atheist.
The third and the last have both happened to me, for example.
While this "questionnnaire" asks these questions in an amusing and deliberately confrontational manner, they are exactly the sort of questions that made me change my mind:
Assuming there is a god, what makes me think I know it's JHVH?
If Jesus is love, how come he acts like x ?
How could God be so mean as to do y ?
...and finally "isn't this a load of old bollox" ?
So there is apoint in repeating the same things.
























































Users browsing this forum: No registered users